Won't such general outlines not more appropriate at places like Wikipedia, as specific chapters of a general article? Well, my opinion about this is a bit weak: I remember some years ago I'd possibly asked the same question - but today I won't even open the question to read that expectable comments & answers..., discussions from contrary viewpoints... - so I'd discourage to reduce oneself to such broad questions (... "to reduce to...broad..." :-) that may sound paradoxical but contains a/my special view on a couple of things ) – Gottfried HelmsDec 8 '12 at 14:16

First of all that is very good question don't know why only few votes here, answering the question: I think there only one a notable difference it is the teaching of dependent origination. – morozovmMar 1 '13 at 18:45

<comments removed> @trideceth12 Please do not use comments to answer these questions. This proposal is not part of a Q&A site, and the task at hand is to help define what is on and off topic for a site. Comments are here to help improve the questions; not to answer them. See What is the rationale for deleting answers? Thank you. – Robert CartainoApr 19 '13 at 14:17

Personally I think this is a good question for a potential site on Buddhism, because it is clearly related to the topic and I would not ask it on Philosophy beta or another existing site. – DruxOct 24 '12 at 18:18

3

Hmm, I thought we wanted a site for Q&A in "facts" , not in prognoses? – Gottfried HelmsOct 25 '12 at 7:25

But then notice that what is asked is not whether he may become the next Dalai Lama (yes, he may), but whether a decision to that effect has in fact already been taken (as Colin Goldner claims). I'd argue that you can expect perhaps as factual an answer as on several of the other example questions (which is not good or bad per se IMO). – DruxOct 25 '12 at 15:34

1

So why not ask simply, whether such a decision has been made (by whom?) ? Instead, the question focuses on speculation: "whether we can assume" is still a speculation. And frankly speaking: that way of arguing is feeding my reserve against the thema "Buddhism" on a Q&A-site as becoming a place of talkativity – Gottfried HelmsOct 26 '12 at 4:40

@Gottfried Helms frankly I do not see the difference (I usually assume only what I have good reason to assume, and you were reminding us about "facts", not facts :), but then I am not a native speaker either, so I will rephrase the question. Thx for your response. – DruxOct 26 '12 at 6:48

It is a surely broad, and yet many students of Buddhism begin with exactly this question. I think this gets to the heart of the purpose of the site. The original StackOverflow site frowns upon broad questions like this, but then StackOverflow is a site about programming where questions should be well-defined and answers should be definitive and backed by substantive evidence rather than opinion. Should a site about Buddhism be constrained in the same way? – user246Dec 3 '12 at 17:07

I would hope if this question was asked that we would help them focus the question. I think we should also come up with a FAQ that answers this question with conscensous so that we can just point to the FAQ. I would hate to see the question poster awarding McDhamma the 'best' answer. – alexJan 13 '13 at 3:56

I think it is not based on current scientific understanding at all. – catpnosisNov 28 '12 at 21:39

4

I think it is a leading double question, skips over, and implies a false assertion. The two questions are (1) "what is the Buddha's teachings about the beginnings...?" and because the answer is null (the Buddha refused to speculate on such things) there is no need to ask (2) "How accurate ... based on current scientific understanding?" – alexJan 14 '13 at 4:33

You might want to look here for additional context. Pls notice that on a beta or an operational site, a question would come with several paragraphs of additional text, whereas here in Area 51 it does not. BTW, why don't you help out by contributing some questions of your own? And BTW, this questioner firmly believes that Pema Chödron is not of the Mahayanna (sic!) tradition :) – DruxJan 14 '13 at 4:28

Well stated @Drux . I withdraw the motion to axe the question. But I believe my point is valid: unless there is some reason (indicated in the opening question or body of the question) why one should doubt common sources such as Wikipedia, we should not entertain elementary questions. ... I have asked questions that I would likely ask and I would like to see and answer. They appear not to be superficial enough to be upvoted. – alexJan 14 '13 at 12:53

My personal opinion is that she is of the Mahayana school (by virtue of being of the Tibetan school as well). But I'm seeking further confirmation with this question and after consulting Wikipedia, for not everybody agrees (see earlier link). – DruxJan 14 '13 at 21:24

Are you asking if there is a literary function/need for these characters? Or cosmological purpose, like a creator, or the turtle upon which the earth rests? If there is a need for such characters would Buddhism describe it? Do Shakespeare's characters describe their dramatic function? Should we expect them to do so? – alexFeb 13 '13 at 6:36

The question is good and interesting. However, I don't think we should expect many to know Osho's understanding of Buddhism, meditation, and vipassana. The question must provide a summary or links in the detailed description of the question. – alexJan 13 '13 at 15:37

I ask this question because the Mahayana commentary is not consistent with the suttas with respect to the word and context. I've seen this misunderstanding arise twice on the philosophy discussion. It will certainly occur here, and I hope we'll address it head on. – alexJan 13 '13 at 15:56

By 'suttas' I assume you are referring exclusively to the Pali Canon? – trideceth12Feb 27 '13 at 13:42